Hydrological Procedure No 27 (HP 27) PDF

GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION
AND DRAINAGE
Hydrological Procedure No. 27
ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH

USING CLARK METHOD FOR RURAL CATCHMENTS
IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
2010
HYDROLOGICAL PROCEDURE No. 27
ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH USING

CLARK METHOD FOR RURAL CATCHMENTS IN
PENINSULAR MALAYSIA
2010
Water Resources Management and Hydrology Division

Department of Irrigation and Drainage
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Malaysia
DISCLAIMER
Although every effort and care has been taken in selecting the methods and proposing the
recommendations that are appropriate to Malaysian conditions, the user is wholly responsible
to make use of this hydrological procedure. The use of this procedure requires professional
interpretation and judgment to suit the particular circumstances under consideration.
The department or government shall have no liability or responsibility to the user or any other
person or entity with respect to any liability, loss or damage caused or alleged to be caused,
directly or indirectly, by the adaptation and use of the methods and recommendations of this
publication, including but not limited to, any interruption of service, loss of business or
anticipatory profits or consequential damages resulting from the use of this publication.
Hydrological Procedure No 27 i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Water Resources Management and Hydrology Division of the Department of Irrigation
and Drainage (DID), Ministry of Water Resources and Environment, Malaysia would like to
express sincere appreciation to GLS Haidro Sdn. Bhd, Ir. Hj. Ghazali Bin Omar and Ir. Hong
Kee Ann in preparing this Hydrological Procedure. Valuable contribution and feedbacks from
DID personnel especially to the Director of Water Resources Management and Hydrology, Ir.
Hj. Hanapi Bin Mohamad Noor and his staff namely Hj. Azmi Bin Md. Jafri, Mohd Khardzir
Husain and Sazali Bin Osman are greatly acknowledge.
Hydrological Procedure No 27 ii
SYNOPSIS
The design of many engineering works requires the consideration of storage upstream of the
structure, examples are dam spillways, retention ponds and for such cases, a complete
design flood hydrograph is therefore necessary to determine the inflow/outflow and storage
relationships for the site concerned. A sound and reliable estimate of the design flood
hydrograph at the site is necessary considering the cost of the structure. However, there are
usually no streamflow records at the point of interest and the design hydrograph may have to
be derived from a design storm.
This procedure gives a method for the estimation of design flood hydrographs for rural
catchments in Peninsular Malaysia. The procedure uses three components; the design storm,
the rainfall-runoff relationship and the equations for Clark parameters in the development of
design flood hydrographs, the reliability and limitation of the procedure are discussed and
worked examples using a computer programme illustrating the use of the procedure are also
presented.
In this study, 530 storms from catchments less than 5,000 km2 throughout Peninsular
Malaysia were analyzed. Of these, 422 storms were taken from the period 1970 - 2000 and
also from 2001 - 2009. The records prior to 2001 were used for calibrating Clark model and to
establish the rainfall-runoff relationships. Records of 2001-2009 were mainly used to verify the
equations derived relating Clark parameters to catchment characteristics.
Hydrological Procedure No 27 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclaimer i
Acknowledgement ii
Synopsis iii
Table of Contents iv-v
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 2: SPECIFICATION FOR PROCEDURE 2
CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURE 2
3.1 General 2
3.2 The Design Storm 3
3.2.1 Return Period 3
3.2.2 Point Rainfall Depth and Frequency 3
3.2.3 Areal Reduction Factor 3
3.2.4 Temporal Distribution 4
3.2.5 Rainfall Duration 4
3.3 Rainfall Runoff Relationship 5
3.4 The Time Distribution of Runoff 8
3.4.1 General 8
3.4.2 Clark Unit Hydrograph 10
3.4.3 Determining and Evaluating Clark Unit Hydrograph Parameters 11
3.4.4 Storm Selection 11
3.4.5 Clark Parameter Determination 11
3.4.6 Equation Development 12
3.4.7 Equation Verification 14
3.4.8 Design Baseflow 16
CHAPTER 4: RELIABILITY OF THE PROCEDURE 17
Hydrological Procedure No 27 iv
CHAPTER 5: LIMITATION OF THE PROCEDURE 18
CHAPTER 6: APPLICATION OF PROCEDURE 19
6.1 Method of application 19
6.1.1 Manual 19
6.1.2 Web Based Programme 19
6.2 Worked examples 20
REFERENCES 32
APPENDIX A: DATA USED DERIVE RAINFALL RUNOFF RELATIONSHIP 34
APPENDIX B: PREDICTED AND OBSERVED HYDROGRAPHS 40
APPENDIX C: AVERAGE Tc, R AND CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS 46
APPENDIX D: MEASURED AND COMPUTED Tc AND R 48
APPENDIX E: CALCULATED AND OBSERVED PEAK DISCHARGES 49
APPENDIX F: User Manual For Web Based Programme 50
Hydrological Procedure No 27 v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page

1 Areal Reduction Factors 4
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page

1 Rainfall Runoff Relationship for West Coast Catchments of
6
Peninsular Malaysia
2 Rainfall Runoff Relationship for East Coast Catchments of
7
Peninsular Malaysia
Approximate Boundary of West Coast and East Coast Catchments
3 Time of Concentration for Storms of 26 Catchments for Clark Unit
Hydrograph Method Measured (average) and as a Function of
9
Catchment Characteristics
Time of Concentration for Storms of 26 Catchments for Clark Unit
4 Hydrograph Method Measured (average) and as a Function of
14
Storage Coefficient for Storms of 26 Catchments for Clark Unit
5 Hydrograph Method Measured (average) and as a Function of
15
6 Relationship of Baseflow and Catchment Area 16
7 Peak Discharge Estimated using Clark Method and Frequency

18
Analysis
8 Hour, 1 Hour and 2 Hour Unit Hydrograph 21
9 Total Design Flood Hydrographs For Various Storm Durations 22
10 Computed Total Design Flood Hydrographs for Various Storm

24
Durations
11 Computed Total Design Flood Hydrographs for Various Storm
26
Durations
Hydrological Procedure No 27 vi
1. INTRODUCTION
Engineers and water resources planners are often encountering problems in the determination of
a design flood as the accuracy of the flood adopted for the design of a water control structure will
affect its cost and safety.
For a site of concern where a streamflow record with sufficient length is available, it is rather a
relatively simple job in design flood estimation using the readily available methodology. However,
for most of the sites where a structure is to be constructed, there are no streamflow or rainfall
records available and the designer has to recourse to alternative methods in estimating the
design flood.
It is considered not appropriate to instrument the catchment for the period required to collect the
hydrological data necessary to derive the design flood. This is time consuming and expensive
and is generally warranted when it involves projects with major capital expenditure. An
acceptable way is to estimate the design flood using a flood estimation procedure in the absence
of hydrological data even though the approach is subject to a greater degree of uncertainty.
Design flood estimates made using a flood estimation procedure should therefore be interpreted
sensibly within the limitations of the method, and checked using other flood estimation methods
available if possible.
Three flood estimation procedures have been published by JPS and adopted for use in
Peninsular Malaysia. The Rational Method (Azmi & Zahari, 1989) and the Regional Flood
Frequency Method (Ong, 1987) have been compiled for flood peak estimation on rural Malaysian
catchments. Hydrological Procedure No. 11 (Taylor, 1976) has been designed to estimate
triangular flood hydrographs for ungauged catchments.
This procedure is developed to complement the procedures mentioned above to provide an

option of estimating the flood hydrograph for ungauged rural catchments. The procedure is not
applicable to urban catchments.
Hydrological Procedure No 27 1
2. SPECIFICATION FOR PROCEDURE
It is considered that the procedure needs to be able to:

a) Estimate the peak flow, the volume and time distribution of runoff for various return periods.
b) Account for the significance differences in the catchment characteristics that affect floods.
c) Utilise catchment data that can be readily determined from topographical maps.
d) Be simple and relatively fast to apply.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURE
3.1 General
Synthetic procedures for design flood hydrographs are mainly deterministic, that is, the design
flood is derived from a hypothetical design storm. A review by Cordery and Pilgrim (1970) shows
that three common steps are used in estimating design flood hydrographs:
a) The specifications of design storm which includes the return period, the total rainfall volume,
the areal distribution of rainfall and the rainfall temporal distribution and its duration.
b) The estimation of runoff volume resulting from the design storm
c) The time distribution of runoff from the catchment
Over the years, a number of techniques have been developed for estimating the components
listed in the three steps above. However, the ability to develop a reliable design flood hydrograph
estimation procedure depends on the availability and reliability of streamflow and rainfall data. In
this respect, the problem is that there are very few major floods for which reliable rainfall and
streamflow data are available for the catchments. Any relationships developed are therefore
based on relatively limited records and the flood estimates are made from extrapolated
relationships.
The techniques used in the development of this procedure are therefore adopted primarily to
retain a degree of simplicity commensurate with the data records available.
3.2 The Design Storm
3.2.1 Return Period
In this procedure, it is assumed that the return period of the design flood equals the return
period of the design storm. This assumption has been adopted for most deterministic flood
estimation procedures.
The severity of damage caused in the event of design flood is exceeded depends on the
design return period adopted for a project. On large schemes, the design return period is
usually based on a cost benefit analysis. For smaller schemes, it is difficult to quantify the
costs pertaining to flood damage and the design return period is chosen quite arbitrary.
Heiler and Tan (1974) have recommended design return period for difference types of
water control structures in Malaysia.
In cases where there is considerable risk of major damage and loss of live in the event of
design flood being exceeded, it is common practice to adopt the upper limit of the flood
regime, such as a probable maximum flood derived from probable maximum storm. The
techniques for estimating the probable maximum storm are beyond the scope of this
procedure.
3.2.2 Point Rainfall Depth and Frequency
A depth duration frequency study of storm rainfall for Peninsular Malaysia has been
compiled in Hydrological Procedure No.1 (1982). Hydrological Procedure No. 1 can be
used to estimate the depth of rainfall of a specified return period and duration for any point
in Peninsular Malaysia. It is considered that the procedure can be used to estimate the
point rainfall depth with reasonably reliability. The user may also undertake to analyse
rainfall data and derive the catchment IDF using the most recent available data.
3.2.3 Areal Reduction Factor
For a storm event, rainfall is usually not evenly distributed over an area with rainfall
amount decreasing with distances from the storm centre. For Peninsular Malaysia large
variations in rainfall amount can occur over short distances, particularly when
thunderstorms dominate. Rainfall areal reduction factors have been studied for Kuala
Lumpur and Kelantan (Water Resources Publication No. 17, 1986). However, the areas
studied are rather limited and not extensive. As such, the areal reduction factors of
Hydrological Procedure No.1 (1982) are adopted for this study. The areal reduction factors
proposed are reproduced as Table 1.
Table 1: Areal Reduction Factors
Catchment Area Storm Duration (hrs)

2
( km ) 1/2 1 3 6 24
0 1 1 1 1 1
50 0.845 0.900 0.952 0.968 0.958
100 0.737 0.828 0.914 0.941 0.958
150 0.668 0.776 0.884 0.919 0.943
200 0.629 0.740 0.861 0.901 0.933
250 0.609 0.717 0.843 0.886 0.925
300 0.598 0.702 0.831 0.873 0.919
350 0.588 0.693 0.821 0.863 0.915
400 0.580 0.686 0.814 0.854 0.913
500 0.663 0.801 0.841 0.909
600 0.660 0.790 0.840 0.910
700 0.482 0.750 0.818 0.892
800 0.650 0.780 0.830 0.910
1000 0.780 0.830 0.910
3.2.4 Temporal Distribution
A study was carried out by JPS (1982, Hydrological Procedure No.1) to find the temporal
distribution of annual maximum rainstorms for selected durations of , 3, 6, 24 and 72
hours. Nine rainfall stations located at different parts of Peninsular Malaysia were selected
for this purpose. The average temporal distributions over the years of record were
computed. The temporal distributions of east and west coast Peninsular Malaysia for the
various durations are presented in the Procedure (HP1). These temporal patterns were
used for this study.
3.2.5 Rainfall Duration
The design storm duration is usually adopted as the duration which gives the maximum
discharge. This critical duration can be found by trial and error by calculating the design
flood for a range of storm durations. A similar practice will be adopted in this procedure. As
there is no known method of determining the correct critical duration of rainfall that should
be used to estimate the design hydrograph, a number of storms of selected return period
and different durations should be applied to the unit hydrograph. The hydrograph used for
design is that giving the highest peak discharge, or the highest peak after routing if outflow
from storage is required.
3.3 Rainfall Runoff Relationship
In this procedure, the method used in Hydrological Procedure No. 11 is adopted to establish the
rainfall runoff relationship, that is, a rainfall runoff relationship is developed so that the volume of
runoff can be estimated from the design storm volume. It is important for rainfall runoff
relationship to be compatible with the design storm as estimated from the procedures such as
those presented in Hydrological Procedure No. 1. As the storm rainfall recorded in any period of a
particular duration is accumulated and used to compute the design storm volume for that
particular duration in deriving the design rainfall, the total accumulated storm rainfall volume for a
particular flood event and the direct runoff derived from the flood hydrograph are used to
determine the rainfall-runoff relationship
There are hundred and one (101) automatic water level recording stations operated by JPS in
Peninsular Malaysia. Water level data obtained from these stations may be used to compute
streamflows. As some of the catchments are larger than 5000 km 2, exceeding the limit as
mentioned by Linsley et al. (1975) for unit hydrograph estimation and there are no continuous and
complete records for a number of other stations, storms from 57 catchments were used for
analysis. Some of the gauging stations selected were operated by other agencies such as JKR
Selangor.
In this study, 530 storms from catchments less than 5000 km2 throughout Peninsular Malaysia
were analyzed. Of these, 422 storms were taken from the period 1970 - 2000 and the rest from
2001 - 2009. The records prior to 2001 were used for calibrating Clark model and to establish the
rainfall-runoff relationships. Records of 2001-2009 were mainly used to verify the equations
derived relating Clark parameters to catchment characteristics.
For each storm, the volume of direct runoff, total storm rainfall volume were calculated using the
records of JPS. Of the data analysed for the period 1970 2000, 228 storms from 41 catchments
were used to develop the rainfall runoff relationships. These data are listed in Appendix A. The
remaining events are not used as for these events the rainfall records sometimes do not allow a
good estimate of total storm rainfall.
In this procedure, rainfall runoff relationships for East Coast and West Coast are derived
separately as storm rainfall and direct runoff of West Coast are found to be different from those of
East Coast. The rainfall runoff relationships are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. The scatter of
points is to be expected since the volume or runoff varies with other factors in addition to rainfall
amount such as the catchment moisture status prior to the storm, the surface cover, soil type and
the intensity of rainfall. In this study, no attempts were made to include the catchment antecedent
moisture status in the rainfall runoff relationship as has been shown in Hydrological Procedure No.
11, rainfall and baseflow indices were not conclusive enough to justify including as index of
catchment antecedent moisture status in the rainfall-runoff relationship. It was also shown in
Flood Runoff Analysis (1994) that antecedent moisture index is a poor indicator of antecedent
moisture condition.
2
Q = P / (P + 350)
Q = 0.176 P
Figure 1: Rainfall Runoff Relationship for West Coast Catchments of Peninsular Malaysia
2
Q = P / (P + 152)
Q = 0.33 P
Figure 2: Rainfall Runoff Relationship for East Coast Catchments of Peninsular Malaysia
It can be seen from figure 2 that the equations of Hydrological Procedure No. 11 are applicable to
the east coast and Johor catchments. The equations are:
Q = 0.33 P P < 75 mm (1)
P2
Q P > 75 mm (2)
P 152
Where P = total storm rainfall in mm

Q = direct runoff in mm
To establish the rainfall runoff relationships of west coast catchments, we follow the procedures
used in Hydrological Procedure No. 11. In Figure 1, the equation was fitted to the observed data
by eye giving emphasis to the relatively few points representing the larger floods analysed. The
fitted curve does not match the observed data for the smaller storms and for storms below 75 mm,
the linear relationship shown in Figure 1 is recommended.
The equations for estimating direct runoff Q from total storm P are:
Q = 0.176 P P < 75 m (3)
P2
Q P > 75 mm (4)
P 350
Figure 3 shows the approximate boundary of the East Coast and West Coast catchments.
3.4 The Time Distribution of Runoff
3.4.1 General
There are several methods of distributing the runoff volume with time of which the best
known is probably the unit hydrograph. The synthetic unit hydrograph methods have been
utilized to describe the entire unit hydrograph for a gauged catchment with only a few
parameters. The hydrograph parameters can be related to catchment characteristics from
which the parameters are derived. These methods can be applied to ungauged
catchments with similar hydrologic conditions. Many synthetic unit hydrograph methods
have been proposed but the Clark unit hydrograph is used in this study because it has
been widely used in countries like USA and Australia.
Approximate regional boundary
Figure 3: Approximate Boundary of West Coast and East Coast

Catchments
3.4.2 Clark Unit Hydrograph
The movement of water through a catchment is dominated by the process of translation

and attenuation. Translation is a movement of water through the catchment because of
gravity force. Attenuation is the result on friction force and channel storage effect. Clark
(1945) pointed out that the translation of flow could be described by the time area curve.
This time area curve shows the fraction of catchment area contributing runoff to the
catchment outlet as a fraction of time since the start of effective rainfall. Effective rainfall is
the rainfall that is not lost through infiltration or retained on the land surface. i.e. it
represents the direct runoff. The time area curve is bounded by the time of concentration,
Tc of a catchment, which is a parameter of the Clark unit hydrograph. Clark used a simple
linear reservoir for which storage is related to inflow to describe attenuation as:
S = RO (5)
Where S = the catchment storage

R = catchment storage coefficient and
O = outflow from the catchment
Clark stated that a synthetic unit hydrograph could be obtained by routing 1 unit of direct
runoff to the channel in proportion to the time area curve and routing the runoff entering
the channel through a simple linear reservoir.
Research has found that determining the time area curve for the catchment was not
needed to obtain a reasonable unit hydrograph. Experience with the Clark unit hydrograph
method at Hydrologic Engineering Centre shows that a detailed time area curve is not
necessary for accurate synthetic unit hydrograph estimation. The typical time area
relationship which is used in Hydrologic Engineering Centre is:
1.5 Tc
t for t
1.414 2
At Tc
1.5
A t
1 1.414 1 Tc (6)
Tc for t
2
Where At= cumulative catchment area contributing at time t
A = total catchment area
Tc = time of concentration of catchment
Tc and R can be obtained via calibration using computer program such as HEC-HMS.
3.4.3 Determining and Evaluating Clark Unit Hydrograph Parameters
Selected storms were calibrated using HEC-HMS to obtain optimal Tc and R values for
the Clark unit hydrograph. Tc and R values determined in this study are evaluated by
comparing the values obtained using additional hydrographs for the period 2001 2009
and the values derived using the equations of this study.
3.4.4 Storm Selection
Storms for determining parameters for synthetic unit hydrographs should be selected to
conform closely to the definition of a unit hydrograph. The storm should be of simple storm,
resulting in well defined hydrographs with distinct peaks. The rainfall should be uniformly
distributed throughout the period of effective precipitation and preferred to be uniformly
distributed over the catchment.
3.4.5 Clark Parameter Determination
The Tc and R values for the Clark unit hydrograph method were determined by calibrating
HEC-HMS model (2009). The 228 storms used in deriving the rainfall runoff relationships
for the 41 catchments were used to estimate Tc and R. In the calibration runs, a loss
model is required for HEC-HMS to estimate direct runoff from catchment rainfall, and as
HEC-HMS does not include a loss model allowing the deduction of a proportion of rainfall
to estimate direct runoff, the initial loss continuing loss model is adopted for calibration
purposes. The Tc and R for Sg. Damansara and Sg. Langat at Mile 10 were obtained from
the paper by Hong (1990).
The rainfall data, basin model, discharge data, meteorological model and control model
were input to HEC-HMS for calibrating the Clark and loss parameters. To optimize the
observed hydrographs using the Clark method, optimization run configurations were
specified. The optimization process was:
a) Run configuration was formed for each event by defining the basin model, the
meteorological model and the control model.
b) Parameters to be optimized using Clark method were initial loss, constant loss, the
time of concentration and the storage coefficient, the recession constant and initial flow.
c) Initial estimates of the parameters were input into the optimization manager.
These parameters were optimized until the optimized hydrograph closely matched the
observed hydrograph.
Some of the observed and predicted hydrographs are shown in Appendix B.
Average Tc and R of Clark method obtained together with the catchment characteristics
are presented in Appendix C.
3.4.6 Equation Development
Equations relating Tc, R and catchment characteristics are required to estimate Tc and R
for ungauged catchments. A multiple linear regression program (HEC 1970) was used to
determine the mathematical relationships of Tc and R with catchment characteristics such
as area, slope and length of mainstream for the 43 catchments of Peninsular Malaysia.
Generally, Tc and R are correlated to catchment size, slope and main stream length, and
slope and main stream length only, it was found that overall Tc and R correlate better with
catchment size, stream slope, and main stream length.
For simplicity and consistency, equations relating Tc and R and catchment area, stream
slope, and main stream length are used to estimate Tc and R for this procedure. Results
are:
Tc = 2.32 A -0.1188 L 0.9573 S -0.5074 (7)

R2 = 0.7883
SE = 0.2116
R = 2.976 A -0.1943 L 0.9995 S -0.4588 (8)

R2 = 0.7656
SE = 0.2024
Where A = catchment area in km2

L = main stream length in km
S = weighted slope of main stream in m/km
Where
2
li S i (9)
S
li
and li = incremental stream length

Si = incremental slope
as defined in Hydrological Procedure No. 11
R2 = coefficient of determination
SE = standard error or the root mean square error
The catchments were subdivided into east and West Coast catchments and the same
multiple linear correlations carried out to derive Tc and R on a regional basis, it was found
that no better correlations can be obtained. Attempts to obtain better correlations by
further dividing the catchments into smaller regional groups for regression analysis are not
successful. Equations (7) and (8) are used to estimate Tc and R for this procedure.
3.4.7 Equation Verification
In this study, 125 storms from 26 catchments, mainly obtained for the period 2001-2009,
were used to calibrate the HEC-HMS model to optimize the Tc and R values. The average
Tc and R values (here termed as measured values) together with those calculated using
equations (7) and (8) are presented in Appendix D. Results are plotted in Figure 4 and
Figure 5. In the figures, Tc and R from both the calibration and verification storms are
plotted against those derived from the equations and it can be seen from the figures that
for most of the catchments, the difference between the points plotted using verification
storms and the equation and that plotted using calibration storms and the equation is not
significant.
Figure 4: Time of Concentration for Storms of 26 Catchments for Clark Unit Hydrograph
Method Measured (average) and as a Function of Catchment Characteristics
Figure 5: Storage Coefficient for Storms of 26 Catchments for Clark Unit Hydrograph
Method Measured (average) and as a Function of Catchment Characteristics
The Multiple Linear Regression Program is used to correlate the measured Tc and R from
verifications storms to those obtained using equations (7) and (8) and the results are:
For Tc calculated using equation (7)
R2 = 0.8145
SE = 0.149
For R calculated using equation (8)
R2 = 0.7829
SE = 0.1354
As the differences between the coefficient of determination and the standard error for the
calibration and verification storms are small, the equations are valid for use to estimate Tc
and R for the regions where these parameters are derived.
3.4.8 Design Baseflow
A baseflow is required to derive the total design hydrograph. It is difficult to predict the
statistical characteristics of baseflow prior to a major flood. For this study, baseflows of the
recorded hydrographs for the catchments before the occurrence of the floods were
averaged and plotted as shown in Figure 6. Baseflows were taken for rather dry and
moderate wet antecedent catchment conditions. A best fit equation was derived for
general use. The equation is:
QB = 0.11 A0.85889 (10)
Where QB is the baseflow in m3/s

A is the catchment area in km2
QB = 0.11 A 0.85889
Figure 6: Relationship of Baseflow and Catchment Area
4. RELIABILITY OF THE PROCEDURE
One way of showing the reliability of the procedure for reconstituting the flood with a return period
of T years is a scatter diagram. In this study, a number of 30 catchments with sufficient length of
rainfall and streamflow records (over 20 years) are selected and the records are used to derive
the 50 year rainfall depth and the flood magnitude for the catchments. The method used in JPS
Hydrological Procedure No. 1 (1982) is adopted to fit the rainfall and flood data analytically. This
method uses the modified leas squares to fit the Gumbel distribution to minimize the sum of
squares of the departures of the plotted points. The time series data were scanned for outliers
using the median rule of Seo (2006). This method is applicable to moderately skewed distributions
as it uses the median value as an estimation of location. Outliers detected are excluded from
further analysis only when there are strong belief and statistical evidence that the values are
outliers. A computer program is developed to calculate the 50 year flood hydrographs for the 30
catchments. Results estimated using Clark method and frequency analysis are presented in
Appendix E.
Figure 7 shows the scatter diagram of peak discharges obtained from frequency analysis and the
Clark method. It can be seen from the figure that most of the points lie between the curves
representing 70% and 130% of the qp = qo line. Where qp = predicted peak discharge using Clark
method and qo=observed peak discharge from frequency analysis.
West Coast
East Coast
Figure 7: Peak Discharge Estimated using Clark Method and Frequency Analysis
5. LIMITATION OF PROCEDURE
This procedure has been prepared mainly for the estimation of reasonable flood hydrographs
where hydrological data for the catchment is sparse or nonexistent. The main limiting assumption
inherent is that the T year flood is caused by the storm of T year return period. Generally, the
proportion of direct runoff relative to rainfall is greater when the antecedent moisture is high. The
rainfall-runoff relationships are derived for design purposes and they are based on average
conditions. The same applies to the Tc and R values derived. The areal variability of catchment
rainfall during a storm causes the time of concentration of a catchment to vary from storm to storm.
This makes the assumption of uniform areal distribution of design storm invalid.
Some unaccounted for storage depression (e.g wetland, extremely flat catchment slopes) could
lead to the overestimation of the peak discharge and the underestimation of the time to peak
when using the equations. The equations developed are applicable for catchment with size used
for the development of these equations.
6. APPLICATION OF PROCEDURE
6.1 Method of Application
A web based program is developed to estimate the design flood hydrograph for any catchment
located in the Peninsular Malaysia. The user needs only to enter data such as catchment size,
stream slope and main stream length and rainfall data which can be obtained from HP 1.The
Clark unit hydrograph and total hydrograph are printed and shown on the computer screen.
6.1.1 Manual
The method of application is shown below:
Step 1: Determine the catchment area, weighted stream slope and main stream
length from the topographical map.
Step 2: Estimate the design rainfall for the specified return period.
Design rainfall for various durations can be obtained using DID H.P. 1 or performing a
frequency analysis using the data of DID data bank for rainfall stations in or near the
catchment.
Step 3: Find ARF from Table 1.
Step 4: Determine the flood region, East or West.
Step 5: From the rainfall temporal pattern of HP 1, determine the fraction of total
rainfall in each interval.
Step 6: Enter the data into the Web based program.
6.1.2 Web Based Programme
The details for the use of web based program is explained in The Users Manual for HP 27
(refer to Appendix F)
7. WORKED EXAMPLES
7.1 Example 1
Calculate the 1 in 20 year design flood hydrograph for the following West Coast catchment;
Area = 321 km2

Stream length = 37.8 km
Weighted stream slope = 23.9 m/km
Solution:
Analysis of the rainfall data of an autographic station near the catchment shows that the 1 in 20
year rainfall is:
Rainfall depth
Rainfall duration (hrs)
(mm)
3 132
4 139
6 144
9 145
12 146
Areal reduction factors (from Table 1) are:
Rainfall duration Areal reduction

(hrs) factor
3 0.84
4 0.85
6 0.88
9 0.89
12 0.90
Calculate direct runoff using equation (4)
Using equation (7) Tc = 7.56 hrs
Equation (8) gives R = 8.53 hrs

Baseflow is 15.64 m3/s using equation (10)
Use West Coast rainfall temporal patterns of Hydrological Procedure No. 1 (HP1)
The computer programme gives the following results:
Rainfall duration (hrs) 3 4 6 9 12

3
Peak discharge (m /s) 198.6 218.1 231.3 227.1 213.9
The 6 hour storm gives the highest peak discharge of 231.3 m3/s.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the 1mm unit hydrographs and the total design flood hydrographs
respectively.
5
Discharge (m3/s)
3 0.5 hr- UH
1 hr- UH
2 hr- UH
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (hrs)
Figure 8: Hour, 1 Hour and 2 Hour Unit Hydrograph
250
200
150
Discharge (m3/s)
3-hr
4-hr
6-hr
100 9-hr
12-hr
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time (hrs)
Figure 9: Total Design Flood Hydrographs for Various Storm Durations
7.2 Example 2
Find the 50 year design flood hydrograph for the East Coast catchment with the following
characteristics;
Area = 587 km2

Stream length = 58.8 km
Stream slope = 3.6 m/km
Solution:
The 50 year rainfall for the automatic station near the gauging station is:
Duration (hrs) Rainfall depth (mm)

6 231
9 266
12 306
18 366
24 408
30 446
36 472
42 497
Areal reduction factors (from Table 1) for the various rainfall durations are:
Rainfall duration Areal reduction

(hrs) factor
6 0.84
9 0.847
12 0.86
18 0.89
24 0.91
30 0.91
36 0.91
42 0.91
Use equation (2) to compute direct runoff.
Equation (10) gives a baseflow of 26.26 m3/s
From equation (7) Tc = 28.07 hrs
Use the east coast rainfall temporal patterns (HP1).
The Clark hydrograph programme gives :
Duration Peak flow

3
(hrs) (m /s)
6 428.4
9 519.0
12 622.4
18 788.4
24 852.5
30 905.7
36 922.5
42 917.5
The 50 year peak flow is 922.5 m3/s and the critical storm is 36 hours.
Figure 10 shows the hydrographs computed.
1000
900
800
700
600
Discharge (m3/s)
6-hr
500 9-hr
12-hr
400 18-hr
24-hr
300 30-hr
36-hr
200 42-hr
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Time (hrs)
Figure 10: Computed Total Design Flood Hydrographs for Various Storm Durations
7.3 Example 3
Find the 10 year design flood hydrograph for the following east coast catchment:
Area = 20.5 km2

Main stream length= 7.1 km
Weighted stream slope = 2.2 m/km
Solution:
The average 10 year rainfall for two autographic stations near the catchment is:
Duration Rainfall depth

(hrs) (mm)
6 221
9 265
12 290
ARF is 0.98 for the rainfall durations above
Use Equation (2) to compute direct runoff
Equation (10) gives a baseflow of 1.47 m3/s
Tc = 7.09 hrs [Equation (7)]
R = 8.18 hrs [Equation (8)]
Use the rainfall temporal patterns of east coast. The results are:
Duration Peak flow

3
(hrs) (m /s)
6 53.5
9 62.2
12 60
Figure 11 shows the total hydrographs computed.
70
60
50
Discharge (m3/s)
40
30
6-hr
20 9-hr
12-hr
10
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (hrs)
Figure 11: Computed Total Design Flood Hydrographs for Various Storm Durations
7.4 Example 4
Use HEC-HMS to find the 20 year 6 hour flood hydrograph of Example 1.
Using Equation (7) Tc = 7.56 hrs
The 6 hr point rainfall = 144 mm
ARF for 6 hr duration = 0.88
Catchment rainfall = 144 x 0.88

= 126.72 mm
Direct runoff = 126.72 [Equation (4)]

126.7+350
= 33.69 mm
Calculate the 1 hour incremental runoff proportional to the rainfall temporal pattern of west coast.
Time Interval Runoff (mm)

0 - 1 hr 14.15
1 2 hr 11.12
2 3 hr 4.04
3 4 hr 2.36
4 5 hr 1.35
5 6 hr 0.67
Total 33.69
One way to use a constant runoff coefficient in HEC-HMS is to input the direct runoff and take
initial loss and constant loss equal to zero.
Click HEC-HMS to start the program

Click File menu and then New
When create New Project appears
Name: type Example 4
Description: type 20 yr 6 hour
Location: type f:/Example4HMS
Default unit system: type metric
Click create
Click tools; Click program setting; Click default
Choose initial loss - constant loss
Choose Clark unit hydrograph
Choose gage wts
Click OK
Go to tool menu
Click components time series data manager
When time Series Data Manager appears
Data type: choose Precipitation gage
Choose New
When Create a new Precipitation gage appears
Name: type Design 20 yr storm
Description: type 6 hour
Click create
Then Close time series data manager
On the watershed explorer, Click on the + sign of Time series data
Click on + Sign of Precipitation gauge
Click on + Sign of Design 20 yr storm
Click on time window default 01Jan2000 00:00; 02Jan2000 00:00
Click on Time series gauge
Time interval: Choose 1 hour
Click time window
Start Date: Type 01Jan2000
Start time: 00:00
End Date: 01Jan2000
End time: 06:00
This is to input rainfall / direct runoff 0 ~ 6 hours at 1 hour interval
Click Table
Fill in Precipitation amount for each interval
01Jan2000 00:00 : No value entered
01Jan2000 01:00 : 14:15
01Jan2000 02:00 : 11.12
01Jan2000 06:00 : 0.67

Click Graph to choose the plot of precipitation values
Click components Basin model manager
When Basin model manager appears
Click New
When Create a new Basin Model appears
Name: Type Example 4
Description: Type 20yr 6hr
Click create
Close Basin model manager
On the watershed explorer
Click + sign of Basin model
Under Basin models
Click Example 4
Choose subbasin symbol and click on graph
Basin model (Example 4) left click
When create a new subbasin element appears
Name: type Example 4
Description: type 20yr 6hr
Click create
Close Basin model (Example 4)
On watershed explorer
Click + sign of example 4
Click + sign of subbasin example 4
Click loss
For Initial loss : type 0
Constant rate : type 0 } 100% runoff
Impervious : type 0
Click example 4 when table appears, fill in area 321
Click transform
Time of concentration Type 7.56
Storage coefficient Type 8.53
Click baseflow
Initial Discharge Type 15.6 [baseflow]
Recession constant Type 1
Ratio tp peak
Ratio: type 0 [independent of peak flow]
Click Components tool bar meteorological model manager - New
Name: type gage wts
Description: type 20 yr 6 hr
Click create
Close meteorological model manager
On the watershed explorer
Click on + sign of meteorological models
Click gage wts
On the table at the bottom, Click Basins in the Basin model
Include subbasins
Choose Yes
Go back to meteorological models at the bottom of precipitation
Click + sign on Example 4
Click gauge weights
At the bottom table
Right column shows use gauge
Choose Yes
When table appears, Click gage weights
Depth weight: type 1 Time weight : type 1
Click components Control specification manager New
When create a new control specifications appears
Name: type Control Example 4
Description: Type 20 year 6 hr
Clicks create and close the control specification
On watershed explorer Click + sign control specification
Click on control example 4
When the table appears
Start Date: type 01Jan2000
Start Time: 00:00
End Date: 04Jan2000
End Time: 24:00
Time interval: 1 hr
Choose 1 hour time interval
The duration of simulation runs must be chosen long enough so that the whole Direct Runoff
Hydrograph is covered.
i.e. start from baseflow and end at baseflow
Here we choose 4 days, if not long enough, extend the time
Click file save to save all data input
Click compute create a simulation and when create a simulation run appears
Click next, next, next, finish
Click compute at toolbar
Click compute run 1
When the run is finished
Click close
Click Results
Click + sign of simulation runs
Click run 1
Click example 4
Click Graph to see hydrograph
Click Summary to see results
Peak is 234.5 m3/s
Total excess = 33.69 mm
Total direct runoff = 33.69 mm
Click Time Series Table to see the full hydrograph
Click file Save to save all data
REFERENCES
1. Azmi M.J. and Zahari O. (1989) Rational method of Flood Estimation for Rural Catchments in
Peninsular Malaysia (Revised and Updated), Drainage and Irrigation Division
2. Cordery I and Pilgrim D.H (1970), Design Hydrograph Methods of Flood Estimation for Small
Rural Catchments, the Institution of Engineers, Australia, Civ. Eng Trans October
3. Clark C.O (1945), Storage and the Unit Hydrograph, Trans. ASCE 110 1419-1446
4. Heiler T.D and Tan H.T (1974) Hydrological Design Return Periods, Provisional Hydrological
Procedure.
5. Hong K.A. (1990) Synthetic Unitgraph for Some Selangor Catchments. IEM Bulletin Bil 1990,
No.11
6. Hydrologic Engineering Centre (2009) Hydrologic Modelling System HEC-HMS Version 3.4
7. JPS (1982), Estimation of the Design Rainstorm in Peninsular Malaysia, Hydrological Procedure
No. 1
8. JPS (1976) Design Flood Hydrograph Estimation for Rural Catchments in Peninsular Malaysia,
9. JPS (1986) Variation of Rainfall with Area in Peninsular Malaysia, Water Resources Publication
No. 17.
10. Linsley R K, Kohler M A and Paulhus JLH (1975), Hydrology for Engineers, McGraw Hill
11. Ong C.Y. (1987) Regional Flood Frequency Method: Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in
Peninsular Malaysia
12. Songwon Seo (2006) A Review and Comparison of Methods for Detecting Outliers in Univariate
Data Sets . M.Sc Thesis, University of Pittsburgh
13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1994) Flood Runoff Analyses, Engineering and Design EM 1110-
2-1417
14. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1970) Multiple Linear Regression Program, Hydrologic
Engineering Centre
APPENDIX A:
DATA USED TO DERIVE RAINFALL RUNOFF RELATIONSHIP
WEST COAST CATCHMENTS
Total Storm Total Direct

Precipitation Runoff
No. Station ID River Event
P Q
(mm) (mm)
Sep-87 107.0 28.0
1 6502431 Sg. Pelarit at Titi Baru
Jul-91 129.0 33.0
May-96 44.0 12.6
2 6502402 Sg. Buloh at Kg. Batu Tangkup
Oct-95 80.0 20.7
Sep-75 48.0 10.0
Oct-74 28.0 7.4
Apr-73 49.0 10.0
Dec-72 21.0 7.0
3 5405421 Sg. Kulim at Ara Kuda Sep-72a 39.0 8.0
Sep-72b 50.0 17.5
Dec-75 41.0 9.0
Feb-71 39.0 9.7
Dec-70 34.0 12.0
Sep-99 176.0 42.8
Sep-95 147.0 50.8
4 5206432 Sg. Krian at Selama Oct-94 71.0 10.0
May-81 51.0 9.6
Nov-80 57.0 18.0
Dec-99 35.0 10.5
Aug-97 40.0 5.2
Feb-97 28.0 4.7
5 4911445 Sg. Plus at Kg. Lintang
Dec-96 34.0 7.5
Jan-80 28.0 4.1
Oct-76 40.0 5.5
Sep-79 58.0 8.0
6 4511468 Sg. Raia at Keramat Pulai Oct-81 36.0 5.7
Jul-83 45.0 5.3
Jan-85 54.0 5.0
Oct-83 54.0 10.6
Jul-82 54.0 10.4
7 4311464 Sg. Kampar at Kg. Lanjut May-82 71.0 17.8
Apr-82 19.0 4.8
Apr-81 113.0 11.3
Sep-75 61.0 6.0
P Q
(mm) (mm)
Oct-96 49.2 16.8
Jun-87 130.0 44.3
8 4012401
Sg. Bidor at Malayan Tin Bhd Nov-86 178.0 39.8
Nov-82 64.0 10.9
Dec-99 41.0 13.0
Sep-99 60.0 18.4
Mar-97 54.0 17.3
Dec96a 83.0 16.8
Dec96b 56.0 11.6
May-91 57.0 12.4
9 3913458 Sg. Sungkai at Sungkai
Oct-90 51.0 9.5
Sep-89 58.0 17.0
Apr-86 29.5 6.9
Sep-83 75.0 9.6
Oct-76 64.0 7.7
Oct-73 46.0 9.3
Feb-00 72.0 11.0
Jun-98 20.0 5.4
Sep-96 70.0 14.8
Sep-94 37.0 5.5
Dec-86 58.0 16.2
Nov-81 105.0 15.2
Sep-80 39.0 9.0
May-79 33.0 7.7
May-78 44.0 9.7
Apr-78 80.0 11.6
10 3814416 Sg. Slim at Slim River Jan-75 41.0 12.6
Jan-74 25.0 6.2
Apr-74 24.0 5.0
Feb-74 43.0 7.2
Apr-73 37.0 7.0
Oct-72 54.0 12.2
Oct-71 57.0 5.4
Sep-71 47.0 7.2
May-71 33.0 3.5
Oct70a 24.0 5.0
Oct70b 42.0 7.5
Apr-96a 85.0 19.9
Apr-96b 90.0 20.7
Jun-91 70.0 11.0
Apr-87 64.0 8.2
11 3615412 Sg. Bernam at Tg. Malim Dec-84 58.0 14.7
Jun-80 29.0 5.9
May-80 44.0 6.7
Apr-78 47.0 10.7
Aug-76 65.0 11.5
No. Station ID River Event Precipitation Runoff
P Q
(mm) (mm)
Sep-73 40.0 8.3
Oct-72 56.0 11.0
Dec-91 49.0 11.0
12 3516422 Sg. Selangor at Rasa Jan-71 160.0 51.0
Dec-86 55.0 19.5
Sep-85 35.8 10.8
Sep-82 36.0 12.2
May-90 26.1 5.2
Aug-87 53.6 6.7
15 3217401 Sg. Gombak at Dam Site Feb-86 36.8 3.7
Oct-85 36.8 5.9
Jun-83 56.2 6.9
Jun-74 30.5 5.2
0ct78 35.9 3.5
Mar-76 76.9 8.8
16 3216439 Sg. Batu at Sungai Tua May-83 66.0 13.0
Jul-73 53.9 10.1
May-74 50.9 7.6
Nov-82 36.2 3.0
Apr-79 48.0 10.2
13 3118445 Sg. Lui at Kg. Lui Nov-82 71.0 7.7
Jan-76 51.5 10.7
Oct-97 69.0 19.5
14 2816441 Sg. Langat at Dengkil
Nov-82 60.6 16.2
May-72 79.4 10.5
17 2519421 Sg. Linggi at Sua Betong
Sep-96 86.7 12.2
Nov-81 31.3 11.0
18 2322413 Sg. Melaka at Pantai Mar-95 81.0 18.5
Belimbing Nov-82 64.0 13.5
May-78 33.5 11.8
19 2224432 Sg. Kesang at Kg. Chin Chin Oct-96 78.0 17.0
Dec-00 57.0 10.7
EAST COAST CATCHMENTS

P Q
(mm) (mm)
May-82 67.5 49.5
20 1732401 Parit Madirono Jan-87 42.6 28.6
Jul-88 91.4 49.5
Nov-79 182.0 134.0
21 1737451 Sg. Johor at Rantau Panjang Dec-81 176.0 134.0
Dec-92 140.0 94.8
Dec-84 69.7 25.0
22 1836402 Sg. Sayong at Jamb. Johor Feb-96 94.0 39.0
Tenggara Jan-99 88.0 56.4
Feb-00 52.5 29.0
Dec-81 293.0 203.0
23 2235401 Sg. Kahang at Jln Kluang Dec-83a 313.0 223.0
Dec-83b 216.0 134.0
Jan-79 217.0 114.0
24 2237471 Sg. Lenggor at Bt. 42
Jan-95 293.0 147.0
Feb-77 76.0 35.0
Dec-85 161.0 87.0
Dec-87 67.5 29.0
25 2527411 Sg. Muar at Buloh Kasap
Mar-88 94.0 55.3
Dec-90 104.0 48.0
Nov-92 135.0 61.0
Dec-99 103.7 14.8
Nov-81 109.0 79.8
26 3024443 Sg. Serting at Padang Gudang Jan-76 108.0 27.7
Oct-77 58.2 13.6
Nov-75 73.8 17.8
Nov-88 111.0 46.0
27 3224433 Sg. Triang at Jambatan Mar-89 39.4 15.7
Keretapi Dec-90 85.3 42.0
Dec-85 136.0 73.5
May-81 20.5 3.2
Nov-79 62.0 26.0
Jan-80 35.6 16.0
28 3519426 Sg. Bentong at Kuala Marong
Jan-00 31.4 17.4
Sep-99 57.7 22.6
Apr-97 50.5 16.3
Dec-90 111.0 55.5
Jan-84 186.0 98.0
Dec-83 186.0 68.0
29 3629403 Sg. Lepar at Gelugor
Dec-95 180.0 99.4
Dec-91 296.0 168.0
Jan-00 216.0 92.0
Event
No. Station ID River P Q
(mm) (mm)
Dec-98 260.0 193.0
Nov-97 63.5 21.0
30 3930401 Sg. Kuantan at Bukit Kenau Feb-96 23.6 10.0
Jan-84 172.0 79.8
Dec-81 69.4 37.3
Dec-99 116.0 68.4
Feb-84 41.7 22.3
Nov-83 97.0 15.6
Apr-81 39.0 18.7
Nov-78 44.5 13.7
31 4019462 Sg. Lipis at Benta Nov-75 70.0 22.3
Mar-74 58.6 13.7
Mar-94 36.0 13.8
Jan-92 36.4 7.8
May-88 67.0 7.9
Mar-85 95.0 25.0
Dec-97a 108.3 49.0
Dec-97b 200.0 91.0
32 4131453 Sg. Cherul at Kg. Banho
Mar-88 352.0 193.0
Sep-97 105.0 21.7
Dec-93 169.0 81.0
Dec-78 62.5 28.4
Nov-92 72.9 23.8
33 4232452 Sg. Kemaman at Rantau
Panjang Dec-89 53.0 32.0
Dec-80 301.0 152.0
Dec-87 260.0 114.0
Nov-89 117.0 64.0
Jan-93 54.0 21.0
34 4832441 Sg. Dungun at Jamb. Jerangau Jan-95 138.0 49.0
Dec-77 146.0 34.0
Dec-78 237.0 145.0
Dec-96 186.0 79.6
35 4930401 Sg. Berang Dec-98 74.0 41.0
Jan-95 264.0 137.0
Jan-84 126.0 28.0
Jan-95 45.2 34.0
36 5129437 Sg. Telemong at Paya Rapoh
Dec-87 200.0 99.0
Nov-94 156.0 109.0
No. Station ID River Event P Q
(mm) (mm)
Nov-90 249.0 176.0
Dec-92 281.0 161.0
Jan-90 242.0 131.0
Dec-97 52.0 16.0
37 5222452 Sg. Lebir at Kg. Tualang Nov-87 81.0 13.9
Dec-91 269.0 192.0
Nov-92 250.0 142.0
Dec-78 174.0 79.0
Nov-79 403.0 310.0
Dec-97 270.0 211.0
Nov-00 291.0 234.0
Jan-91 280.0 220.0
38 5229436 Sg. Nerus at Kg. Bukit
Dec-81 204.0 110.0
Dec-87 202.0 125.0
Nov-90 207.0 113.0
Dec-97 164.0 52.0
Dec-98 137.0 57.0
Dec-99 167.0 80.0
Dec-83 238.0 97.0
39 5428401 Sg. Chalok at Jamb. Chalok
Dec-84 228.0 135.0
Nov-91 284.0 199.0
Nov-92 163.0 65.0
Nov-79 269.0 153.0
Nov-81 287.0 142.0
Nov-86 245.0 119.0
Nov-94 96.0 17.6
40 5718401 Sg. Lanas at Air Lanas
Jan-95 49.0 18.2
Dec-84 420.0 258.0
Mar-85 174.0 87.0
Dec-96 127.0 69.0
Nov-81 301.0 178.0
Nov-92 282.0 135.0
41 5724411 Sg. Besut at Jamb. Jerteh
Nov-94 262.0 134.0
Dec-97 229.0 113.0
Feb-00 236.0 123.0
APPENDIX B:
PREDICTED AND OBSERVED HYDROGRAPHS
1. SG. BULOH AT KG. BATU TANGKUP 6502402

16 May 1996
2. SG. KULIM AT ARA KUDA 5405421

3 October 1974
3. SG. BIDOR AT MALAYAN TIN BHD 4012401
9 October 1996
4. SG. SELANGOR AT RASA 3516422

31 December 1991
5. SG. LINGGI AT SUA BETONG 2519421
3 September 1996
6. SG. MELAKA AT PANTAI BELIMBING 2322413

19 March 1995
7. SG. KESANG AT CHIN CHIN 2224432
13 May 1978
8. SG. KAHANG AT JLN KLUANG / MERSING 2235401

27 December 1983
9. SG. KUANTAN AT BUKIT KENAU 3930401
2 February 1996
10. SG. KEMAMAN AT RANTAU PANJANG 4232452

18 December 1993
11. SG. CHALOK AT JAMB. CHALOK 5428401
15 December 1999
APPENDIX C:
AVERAGE Tc, R AND CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Main Main
Time of Storage Catchment
No. Station ID Station Name River River
Concentration Coefficient Area
Length Slope
Tc R A L S
2
(hrs) (hrs) km km m/km
1 1732401 Parit Madirono 6.2 7.0 1.7 2.8 2.0
2 1737451 Sg. Johor at Rantau Panjang 54.3 61.6 1,130.0 61.4 1.2
Sg. Sayong at Jamb. Johor
3 1836402 53.8 44.6 624.0 47.1 1.3
Tenggara
4 2224432 Sg. Kesang at Kg. Chin Chin 14.5 53.0 161.0 34.0 3.4
5 2235401 Sg. Kahang at Jln Kluang 58.7 39.0 587.0 58.8 3.6
6 2237471 Sg. Lenggor at Bt. 42 28.0 17.3 207.0 26.7 5.2
7 2322413 Sg. Melaka at Pantai Belimbing 15.7 36.2 350.0 43.8 2.1
8 2519421 Sg. Linggi at Sua Betong 23.4 27.9 523.0 59.7 7.4
9 2527411 Sg. Muar at Buloh Kasap 150.0 109.0 3,130.0 165.4 1.9
10 2816441 Sg. Langat at Dengkil 18.9 29.3 1,240.0 49.0 7.7
11 3024443 Sg. Serting at Padang Gudang 64.9 131.5 950.0 92.8 1.1
12 3118445 Sg. Lui at Kg. Lui 7.6 5.1 68.1 15.5 14.4
13 3216439 Sg. Batu at Sg. Tua 1.1 2.9 55.7 14.8 64.5
14 3217401 Sg. Gombak at Dam Site 2.2 4.0 84.7 20.2 49.0
15 3224433 Sg. Triang at Jln. Keretapi 116.5 68.0 2,000.0 144.7 2.9
16 3516422 Sg. Selangor at Rasa 6.0 14.1 321.0 37.8 23.9
17 3519426 Sg. Bentong at Kuala Marong 4.1 6.4 241.0 25.0 16.2
18 3615412 Sg. Bernam at Tg. Malim 5.2 6.3 186.0 20.2 45.8
19 3629403 Sg. Lepar at Gelugor 42.5 50.0 560.0 69.5 3.2
20 3814416 Sg. Slim at Slim River 17.0 7.5 455.0 51.0 16.1
21 3913458 Sg. Sungkai at Sungkai 13.0 8.2 289.0 44.6 19.7
22 3930401 Sg. Kuantan at Bukit Kenau 8.6 5.9 582.0 36.2 12.7
23 4012401 Sg. Bidor at Malayan Tin Bhd 7.5 9.4 210.0 34.9 21.1
24 4019462 Sg. Lipis at Benta 38.6 21.2 1670 89.6 4.9
25 4131453 Sg. Cherul at Kg. Banho 20.9 17.0 505.0 53.6 6.0
26 4232452 Sg. Kemaman at Rantau Panjang 19.8 29.4 626.0 64.7 3.2
27 4311464 Sg. Kampar at Kg. Lanjut 9.3 17.7 432.0 54.7 18.9
28 4511468 Sg. Raia at Keramat Pulai 6.0 7.5 192.0 37.8 33.8
29 4832441 Sg. Dungun at Jamb. Jerangau 22.5 25.8 1,480.0 88.3 5.1
30 4911445 Sg. Plus at Kg. Lintang 13.7 7.9 1,090.0 71.4 9.5
31 4930401 Sg. Berang at Kg. Menerong 6.7 8.9 140.0 30.0 23.7
32 5129437 Sg. Telemong at Paya Rapat 10.1 9.6 160.0 42.4 9.3
Main Main
Time of Storage Catchment
No. Station ID Station Name River River
Concentration Coefficient Area
Length Slope
Tc R A L S
2
(hrs) (hrs) Km km m/km
33 5206432 Sg. Krian at Selama 25.1 21.6 629.0 46.7 12.4
34 5222452 Sg. Lebir at Kg. Tualang 33.9 23.2 2,430.0 128.7 1.7
35 5229436 Sg. Nerus at Kg. Bukit 28.7 32.4 393.0 48.5 2.3
36 5405421 Sg. Kulim at Ara Kuda 11.3 9.7 129.0 30.0 6.7
37 5428401 Sg. Chalok at Jam. Chalok 4.0 7.2 20.5 7.1 2.2
38 5718401 Sg. Lanas at Air Lanas 15.0 11.0 80.0 18.5 12.3
39 5724411 Sg. Besut at Jamb. Jerteh 17.8 20.6 787.0 63.1 2.1
40 6502402 Sg. Buloh at Kg. Batu Tangkup 8.9 4.4 16.3 7.7 4.3
41 6502431 Sg. Pelarit at Titi Baru 13.9 16.6 48.0 23.6 12.8
42 JKR Sg. Damansara at Bt. 41.5 7.0 5.1 97.0 16.0 2.2
43 JKR Sg. Langat at Bt.10 1.5 2.8 76.0 13.5 44.6
44 2918443* Sg. Semenyih at Semenyih - - 212 29.8 13.7
*Records not used for calibration
APPENDIX D:
MEASURED AND COMPUTED Tc AND R
Mean Tc from Tc from Mean R from R from

No. Station ID Catchment verfication equation verification equation
storm (7) storm (8)
Sg. Sayong at Jamb. Johor
1 1836402 42.00 37.80 28.80 35.50
Tenggara
2 2224432 Sg. Kesang at Kg. Chin Chin 14.40 23.80 35.30 25.20
3 2237471 Sg. Lenggor at Bt. 42 12.30 12.40 13.80 13.20
4 2519421 Sg. Linggi at Sua Betong 21.40 20.03 22.30 20.98
5 2816441 Sg. Langat at Dengkil 15.50 20.30 12.40 14.20
6 3118445 Sg. Lui at Kg. Lui 6.40 5.00 5.80 5.97
7 3224433 Sg. Triang at Jln. Keretapi 96.80 64.10 68.40 60.20
8 3519426 Sg. Bentong at Kuala Marong 5.00 6.40 6.60 7.10
9 3615412 Sg. Bernam at Tg. Malim 3.90 3.18 5.20 3.76
10 3629403 Sg. Lepar at Gelugor 42.00 35.20 30.80 35.40
11 3814416 Sg. Slim at Slim River 14.40 11.76 15.30 12.84
12 3913458 Sg. Sungkai at Sungkai 13.70 9.90 9.70 11.20
13 3930401 Sg. Kuantan at Bukit Kenau 8.70 9.30 7.00 9.73
14 4019462 Sg. Lipis at Benta 43.90 31.70 32.90 30.40
15 4131453 Sg. Cherul at Kg. Ban Ho 26.20 20.20 22.80 20.90
16 4232452 Sg. Kemaman at Rantau Panjang 19.50 32.40 31.70 32.30
17 4832441 Sg. Dungun at Jam. Jerangau 32.20 31.10 23.50 30.00
18 4911445 Sg. Plus at Kg. Lintang 15.00 19.20 12.20 19.40
19 4930401 Sg. Berang at Kg. Menerong 6.60 6.72 10.50 7.99
20 5129437 Sg. Telemong at Paya Rapat 8.90 15.60 15.40 18.50
21 5206432 Sg. Krian at Selama 11.90 11.92 20.90 12.50
22 5222452 Sg. Lebir at Kg. Tualang 38.80 72.80 28.00 65.40
23 5229436 Sg. Nerus at Kg. Bukit 31.50 30.70 32.70 30.80
24 5405421 Sg. Kulim at Ara Kuda 8.00 12.90 8.70 14.50
25 5428401 Sg. Chalok at Jamb. Chalok 5.50 7.10 8.90 8.20
26 5718401 Sg. Lanas at Air Lanas 11.00 6.30 8.90 7.40
APPENDIX E:
CALCULATED AND OBSERVED PEAK DISCHARGES
50 ARI peak discharge

Catchment Clark Frequency
No. Station ID Station Name 2
Area (km ) method analysis
(m3/s) (m3/s)
1 1836402 Sg. Sayong at Jamb. Johor Tenggara 624.0 566.3 395.0
2 2224432 Sg. Kesang at Kg. Chin Chin 161.0 60.7 60.8
3 2235401 Sg. Kahang at Jln Kluang 587.0 922.5 1008.0
4 2237471 Sg. Lenggor at Bt. 42 207.0 522.7 568.8
5 2322413 Sg. Melaka at Pantai Belimbing 350.0 146.7 154.0
6 2519421 Sg. Linggi at Sua Betong 523.0 263.3 268.3
7 2918443 Sg. Semenyih at Semenyih 212.0 152.8 125.8
8 3118445 Sg. Lui at Kg. Lui 68.1 89.7 93.3
9 3516422 Sg. Selangor at Rasa 321.0 285.4 246.0
10 3519426 Sg. Bentong at Kuala Marong 241.0 347.4 403.0
11 3615412 Sg. Bernam at Tg. Malim 186.0 401.5 233.0
12 3629403 Sg. Lepar at Gelugor 560.0 556.9 535.0
13 3813411 Sg. Bernam at SKC 1090 657.4 429.4
14 3814416 Sg. Slim at Slim River 455.0 323.7 260.0
15 3913458 Sg. Sungkai at Sungkai 289.0 256.7 202.0
16 4012401 Sg. Bidor at Malayan Tin Bhd 210.0 226.0 235.1
17 4019462 Sg. Lipis at Benta 1670.0 820.6 708.0
18 4232452 Sg. Kemaman at Rantau Panjang 626.0 919.2 1225.0
19 4311464 Sg. Kampar at Kg. Lanjut 432.0 218.9 162.4
20 4611463 Sg. Kinta at Tg. Rambutan 246.0 380.1 448.0
21 4832441 Sg. Dungun at Jamb. Jerangau 1480.0 3245.7 3509.0
22 4911445 Sg. Plus at Kg. Lintang 1090.0 593.2 503.0
23 4930401 Sg. Berang at Kg. Menerong 140.0 907.0 798.0
24 5129437 Sg. Telemong at Paya Rapat 160.0 598.0 657.0
25 5206432 Sg. Krian at Selama 629.0 329.1 346.3
26 5229436 Sg. Nerus at Kg. Bukit 393.0 963.0 1043.0
27 5405421 Sg. Kulim at Ara Kuda 129.0 167.8 1563.0
28 5428401 Sg. Chalok at Jamb. Chalok 20.5 94.7 148.9
29 5718401 Sg. Lanas at Air Lanas 80.0 316.8 253.0
30 5724411 Sg. Besut at Jamb. Jerteh 787.0 2300.4 1936.0
APPENDIX F:
USERS MANUAL
HP No. 27
Unit Hydrograph for Flood Estimation using Clark Hydrograph for Rural
Catchments in Peninsular Malaysia
1. Input Parameter
a) Open web browser and enter the URL: http:// h2o.water.gov.my
o Click Unit Hydrograph for Flood Estimation of Design Flood Hydrograph Using Clark Method
for Rural Catchments in Peninsular Malaysia.
o User will be redirected to the input parameter page.
b) Enter data for Clark Parameter. Click Calculate TC & R.

o Value for TC & R will be calculated by the application.
c) Enter data for Design Parameter. Click Calculate.

o User will be redirected to result page.
1 Output Parameter
a) Outputs are in as graphs and data file.
HYDROLOGICAL PROCEDURES PUBLISHED
No. 1 - Estimation of the Design Rainstorm in Peninsular Malaysia

(Revised and updated, 2010).
No. 2 - Water Quality Sampling for Surfaces Water (1973).
No. 3 - A General Purpose Event Water Level Recorder Capricorder
Model 1598 (1973).
No. 4 - Magnitude and frequency of floods in Peninsular Malaysia (1974).
No. 5 - Rational method of flood estimation for rural catchments in
Peninsular Malaysia (Revised and updated, 2010).
No. 6 - Hydrological Station numbering system (1974).
No. 7 - Hydrological Station Registers (1974).
No. 8 - Field Installation and Maintenance of Capricorder 1599 (1974).
No. 9 - Field Installation and Maintenance of Caprocorder 1598 Digital
Event Water Level Recorder (1974).
No. 10 - Stage-Discharge Curves (1977).
No. 11 - Design Flood Hydrograph Estimation for Rural Catchments in
Peninsular Malaysia (1976).
No. 12 - Magnitude and Frequency of Low Flows in Peninsular Malaysia
(1976).
No. 13 - The Estimation of Storage Draft Rate Characteristics for Rivers
in Peninsular Malaysia (1976).
No. 14 - Graphical Recorders Instruction for Chart Changing and
Annotation (1976).
No. 15 - River Discharges Measurement by Current Meter (1976).
No. 16 - Flood Estimation for Urban Areas in Peninsular Malaysia (1976).
No. 17 - Estimation Potential Evapotranspiration Using the Penman
Procedure (1977).
No. 18 - Hydrological Design of Agriculture Drainage Systems (1977).
No. 19 - The Determination of Suspended Sediment Discharges (1977).
No. 20 - Hydrological Aspects of Agriculture Planning and Irrigation Design
(1977).
No. 21 - Evaporation Data Collection Using U.S Class A Aluminum Pan
(1981).
No. 22 - River Water Quality Sampling (1981).
No. 23 - Operation and Maintenance of Cableways Installation (1981).
No. 24 - Establishment of Agro-hydrological Stations (1982).
No. 25 - Standard Stick Gauge of River Station (1982).
No. 26 - Estimation of Design Rainstorm in Sabah and Sarawak (1983).
No. 27 - Estimation of Design Flood Hydrograph Using Clark Method For
Rural Catchments in Peninsular Malaysia (2010).
www.water.gov.my
h2o.water.gov.my

Hydrological Procedure No 27 (HP 27) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrological Procedure No 27 (HP 27) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydrological Procedure No 27 (HP 27) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA

Hydrological Procedure No. 27

ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH

ESTIMATION OF DESIGN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH USING

Water Resources Management and Hydrology Division

Hydrological Procedure No 27 iii

APPENDIX F: User Manual For Web Based Programme 50

Table Title Page

Figure Title Page

7 Peak Discharge Estimated using Clark Method and Frequency

10 Computed Total Design Flood Hydrographs for Various Storm

This procedure is developed to complement the procedures mentioned above to provide an

It is considered that the procedure needs to be able to:

3.2.1 Return Period

3.2.2 Point Rainfall Depth and Frequency

3.2.3 Areal Reduction Factor

Table 1: Areal Reduction Factors

Catchment Area Storm Duration (hrs)

3.2.4 Temporal Distribution

3.2.5 Rainfall Duration

3.3 Rainfall Runoff Relationship

Q = 0.33 P P < 75 mm (1)

Where P = total storm rainfall in mm

Q = 0.176 P P < 75 m (3)

3.4 The Time Distribution of Runoff

Figure 3: Approximate Boundary of West Coast and East Coast

The movement of water through a catchment is dominated by the process of translation

Where S = the catchment storage

3.4.3 Determining and Evaluating Clark Unit Hydrograph Parameters

3.4.4 Storm Selection

3.4.5 Clark Parameter Determination

3.4.6 Equation Development

Tc = 2.32 A -0.1188 L 0.9573 S -0.5074 (7)

R = 2.976 A -0.1943 L 0.9995 S -0.4588 (8)

Where A = catchment area in km2

and li = incremental stream length

as defined in Hydrological Procedure No. 11

For Tc calculated using equation (7)

For R calculated using equation (8)

QB = 0.11 A0.85889 (10)

Where QB is the baseflow in m3/s

Figure 6: Relationship of Baseflow and Catchment Area

6.1 Method of Application

The method of application is shown below:

Step 3: Find ARF from Table 1.

Step 4: Determine the flood region, East or West.

Step 6: Enter the data into the Web based program.

6.1.2 Web Based Programme

Area = 321 km2

Areal reduction factors (from Table 1) are:

Rainfall duration Areal reduction

Calculate direct runoff using equation (4)

Using equation (7) Tc = 7.56 hrs

Equation (8) gives R = 8.53 hrs

The computer programme gives the following results:

Rainfall duration (hrs) 3 4 6 9 12

Figure 8: Hour, 1 Hour and 2 Hour Unit Hydrograph

Figure 9: Total Design Flood Hydrographs for Various Storm Durations

Area = 587 km2